About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 4
CSPAN 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of course this is chuck hagel, the former republican senator from nebraska. look at some of his answers. >
this is chuck hagel, the former republican senator from nebraska. look at some of his answers. >> i should have used another term, and i'm sorry. i would like to go back and change the words and the meaning. the bigger point is, what i was saying, i think -- what i meant to say, should have said, is recognizable. it's been recognized, is recognized. well, i said it. and i don't remember the context or when i said it. well, i said what i said. i said many, many things over many years. that's what i should have said. and thank you. >> secretary panetta, many of those answers did not satisfy a lot of republicans. senator roy blunt is going to vote no. he said his answers were too inconsistent particularly related to iran and israel. marco rubio said i've been deeply concerned about his plef previous comments. john barrasso, he appeared weak and wobbly. are you concerned? >> well, everyone you quoted is a republican, and it's pretty obvious that the political knives were out for chuck hagel. >> and you think that was totally personal, partisan? >> well, what disappointed me is they talked a lot abo
on television. today in a 58-40 cloture voted. they blocked chuck hagel being the sex -- secretary of defense. next the hour long debate on the nomination. they said they will not vote for cloture today, i think it's too bad. there's been more than enough time to read the additional speeches that have been coming in. the argument raced beyond that i know has do with the payment an equity fund that was received has been fully explained. as a highly reputable fund that senator hagel was an adviser to like many other reputable people. i think the continuation what amounts to filibuster is too bad when there's a secretary of defense who is leafing to go back to california. we need to have our new secretary of defense in place given the circumstances in this world. we have a budget crisis in this country, our scwesser is confronting us. that's sequester will have a damaging effect on the deference department, on the men and women in uniform. and on the programs, the equipment, the training that they need to be ready for any kind of contingency. so the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me is a
we have 68,000 young men and women serving there. >> are you confident of chuck hagel? have you spent time with him? you guys have to have a partnership. secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs, whether you like each other or are not, are you confident you can have a good relationship with him? >> i have spent time with senator hagel, including when he was teaching over at georgetown, on strategic issues. and in helping prepare him for this confirmation hearings, we had several opportunities to talk about strategy. and i found him well prepared and very thoughtful about it. >> were his answers to you better than the answers you saw there? >> i'm not going to grade his homework. but in my conversations, he was well prepared, articulate, concise. >> and you're confident he can do the job? >> i'm not going to speak about confidence. he could be my boss. when is the last time you saw a subordinate discuss the confidence in his boss? my personal contacts with him have been very positive. if he's confirmed, i look forward to working with him. >> senator lindsey graham s
the qualifications of chuck hagel. i served with chuck hagel. he is a conservative republican representing the ultra liberal state of nebraska. he served with distinction in the united states senate as a senator, served on the foreign relations committee, armed services committee, intelligence committee. he's a man of quality, a man of courage. not just being able to come and give a speech here on the senate floor. during the vietnam war, he volunteered to go into combat. that's what he chose to do. because he thought it was the patriotic thing to do for his country, our country. and his family felt that way. he and his brother went togeth together. they didn't go to push pencils. they carried rifles, had strapped to their sides grenad grenades. he was wounded twice. he's an enlisted man. he didn't walk around ordering people to do things. people were ordering him around what to do. except when it came to his brother, who he saved his brother's life in combat in vietnam. and they are filibustering him. that's what they're doing. i'm going to go call chuck hagel when i finish here and say, i'm sorry,
continue to supply weapons. >> chris: then there is the president's nominee, former senator chuck hagel, at his confirmation hearing, it is fair to say you gave him a real going-over about his opposition to the iraq troop surge in 2007. let's look at that: >> we are correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to the -- >> answer the question, senator hagel. the question is: were you right or wrong? >> chris: i have a question for you, how will you vote on the hagel nomination? >> we still have more information, but, again, that was not be a academic discussion i was having with him. we were losing the war in 2006. and, when the president came around, bush, who i had been very critical of, sent david petraeus and the surge, we succeeded in iraq and now, because of the obama administration's action afterwards we are losing, very badly unraveling, but the fact is the we hadn't done that more american lives would have been lost unnecessarily. so, for then senator hagel to say, well, he'll let history be the judge, he was there and involved. and i'm sure he is wrong and knows he's wrong
in confirming some of president obama's key appointees. chuck hagel at defense, john brennan at the cia, and now senator mccain saying he is not ready to call it a day on all of this. a congress hearing -- >> then you ought to have your facts straight. >> reporter: after congressional hearing. >> who responsible then? >> reporter: republican senator john mccain challenge, the white house on its response to benghazi. now he is going further on nbc's "meet the press." >> so there are many, many questions and we have had a massive cover-up. >> a cover-up of what? i'm just saying you, a cover-up of what? >> i'll be glad to send you a list of questions that have not been answered. >> reporter: the white house says it's given answers. conducted 20 briefings for congress. officials have testified at ten hearings, answered how queries. it all adds up to 10,000 pages of documents. just last week, mccain himself told cnn recent responses on benghazi were, quote, adequate. so, is this just politics? when we asked mccain's office what other questions the senator still had, we were referred to this january p
second round. if they are interested, they should let us know. the meeting of our committee and the hagel nomination of the scheduled at 230 will begin at 2:45 p.m. because we have two votes at 2:15 p.m. two votes at 2:15 p.m. this afternoon. after consulting with senator inhofe, we are going to begin our meeting this afternoon at 2:45 p.m. instead of 2:30 p.m. i've asked everybody to vote early so that we can begin promptly at 2:45 p.m. this afternoon. now, i'm going to call on senator graham, then i will go to senator shaheen. senator graham? >> thank you, gentlemen, thank you for coming. thank you for having this hearing. i can't think of a better topic to be talking about. can you tell us about this is? >> senator, i have a degree in english from duke university, the answer is yes. i don't know what it's going to take. maybe it gets everyone's attention, from a navy perspective, if sequestration is implemented, will he have less naval bases? >> well, senator, that falls under the base closure realignment process. >> how many ships will they have? >> if sequestration is enacted over th
. on december of 2012, senator chuck hagel was nominee to become the secretary of defense. when he was asked about the outgoing secretary leon panetta's comments about budget sequestration that would be disastrous to national defense, the senator replied as follows. the defense department, i think in many ways, has been bloated. the defense department has gotten everything it has wanted. the last 10 years and more. we have taken priorities, dollars, programs, policies out of the state department. and another of other departments and put them in defense. the abuse and waste and fraud is astounding. .. with him or her >> or something like that. it was obvious that in some places had accumulated over the decades that is why secretary gates started the efficiency initiative that i was a part of to improve performance and requisition system. in parallel, we had absorbed for madrid $87 billion budget cut in a way wear we said we could still accomplish the mission of the nation speaking to the fact we could do what the country needed with less. but today we cannot do that strategy. so we have accom
. on december 2012, senator chuck hagel was the nominee to become the next secretary of defense. he had an interview with the financial times. when he was asked about that outgoing secretary secretary panetta's comments, you replied as followed, "the defense followed in many ways and has been bloated. it has gotten everything it has wanted the last 10 years and more. we have taken priorities, dollars, programs, policies out of the state department and put them over into defense. the abuse and waste and the fraud is astounding. the pentagon needs to be pared down. me the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. -- the pentagon needs to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. you agree with this general perception that senator hagel -- chuck hagel made. that would be great. >> that is a good question. it is a fair question. i cannot speak for senator hagel. my interpretation is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say. we had accumulated over the decade post 9/11 when our budget was going up every year. when your
to the same committee room that we will take you to now. we went there to hear defense nominee chuck hagel's testimony. they will come in soon. a little bit later, at 2:30 p.m. in the senate intelligence committee, john brennan's confirmation will be life. you see senator mccain. you have the ranking for the senate armed service committee. this should begin in a second. let us watch. we will cavill and to hear from defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey about the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that resulted in the death of four americans. one week ago today, this committee heard from senator chuck hegel -- hagel to be the next defense secretary. the center of south carolina said he would put a hold on former senator hagel's nomination unless leon panetta agreed to testify. this is the first of two harris we will show you today. this and later this afternoon, the confirmation hearing for cia director nominee, john brennan, currently the counter-terrorism chief. >> good morning, everybody. we welcome secretary of defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint
confirms a new defense secretary. the president has nominated former senator chuck hagel. this is just under an hour. ♪ [applause] ♪ >> review. ♪ ♪ ["yankee doodle" plays] >> ladies and gentleman, please stand for the playing of the united states national anthem. >> present arms. >> present arms. ["the star-spangled banner" plays] >> please be seated. [indiscernible] >> ready. hut. ladies and gentlemen, general dempsey. [applause] >> mr. president, secretary and mrs. panetta, ambassadors, members of congress, men and women of the armed forces of the united states, especially our wounded warriors, and we cannot forget bravo. i was hoping bravo would be out there for the inspection of troops, but apparently jeremy thought differently. it is an honor to be here for this event. we're here to show our profound respect and thanks to secretary panetta. i recall play "the tempest," which is a nice metaphor, and i like to think of you as the prospero of public service. the secretary has used his arts to imbue a sense of public service in generations of the men and women. and like that k
, john brennan and for defense secretary, chuck hagel unless the president provides more information on the september 2012 attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. listen to this. >> how could they say after panetta and dempsey said it was a terrorist attack that night, how could the president say for two weeks after the attack it was the result of a video? how could susan rice come on to show to say there is no evidence of a terrorist attack when sick tear of defense and joint chiefs knew that that night? i think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before our election. >> he is hanging onto this in a big way. joining me, kt mcfarland, fox news security analyst . what do you think he is saying, kt? >> what he is talking about is the most significant part. and that is the president had nothing to do with this. that the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff now said at the beginning of this attack american embassy under attack, american ambassador gone missing they told the president and that was it. the president had nothing more to do with it. mart
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)